Veritas Nutsaver

[Karl Fife]

Schwarz is right. This stuff writes itself. Remember Chris's nutsaver article?
Go read it.

popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/the-nutsaver-this-stuff-writes-itself

The article is about a method of tightening the depth stop nut on the tool pictured below. The stop will frequently slip if it's finger tight, and using pliers on soft nuts is unspeakable--even if they're big, and made of brass like the example below.

323228

Here's my recent spin on it on keeping your nuts tight:
I just cut a screwdriver groove with slitting saw:

323227

For me, it is a WAY more sensible/simple/elegant solution to reach for the chip breaker driver (that's already on the bench) than it is to go get a special-purpose strap wrench.

323230

Now I can snug it up with the same screwdriver I've got with me already!

323229

If I'd not had access to a milling machine and slitting saw, I'd have done the same with a simple auger-bit file like this one:

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?cat=1,320,43072,43089&p=70693
(http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?cat=1,320,43072,43089&p=70693)(Possibly one of my "all time favorite tools of all time")

The screw under that big brass knob is a SMALL #10-32, so any self-respecting neanderthal could easily twist the head off with a big driver like the one shown. Obviously a screwdriver can't work on the fence nuts, but I've not had any trouble with my fence slipping. Supposedly, a bit of texture on the rods with fine sandpaper is highly effective for that. AND it's simpler and faster than trying to get a strap.

I hope this helps!

[Jim Koepke]

Here's my recent spin on it on keeping your nuts tight:
I just cut a screwdriver groove with slitting saw:

For my plane they could be changed out. There are some from a later plane in my spare parts with the slots already there.

I made one of the nutsavers:

323235

It is nice, but this plane doesn't have much of a problem.

My Record #0778 tends to have a problem. For that a small pair of pliers is used with great care. There is some leather around to pad the jaws. I tried making permanent jaw booties, but that wasn't the answer.

jtk

[Brian Ashton]

Maybe I've got vise grip type fingers because I've never had the depth stop slip, and I've used them a fair bit over the years.

[Jim Koepke]

Maybe I've got vise grip type fingers because I've never had the depth stop slip...

My grip is not as good as it used to be. My faithful companion is also involved, Arthur as in Arthur Rightus.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

There is a long thread here on the trials and tribulations of one who stuffed up the nut on their plow.

I've been writing for a few years now about adding a slot to the screw face ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/Slots1_zpsaa8fa799.jpg

When I saw the article on CS's blog, my first thought was "great idea". Later, when the owner of the busted screw described how he busted it - by twisting - I realised that there was something amiss with this method, and did some research. This is what I wrote on that thread (and now open for debate) ..

I am not an mechanical engineer, and indeed the courses I did in this area 40 years ago are lost in the mists of time as I strayed far from it. However something was nagging at the back of what is left of my brain, and I have done a limited amount of research.

What was nagging me is how shear failure occurs, and whether a screw slot is better/worse than a pair of vise grips.

I suspect that my instinct is correct, but others with the correct qualifications to comment are encouraged to comment. This is all aside from what LV come up with as a retrofittable solution - I have no idea what their plan is.

Here's how I see it (correctly or incorrectly): forces at the outside of a bolt head will act differently to forces at the centre of the screw. Excess force either way is bad, but forces at the outside of the bolt head will be bad regardless.

Part of the reason for the latter is that the outside forces can force the bolt shaft to twist, and this is what leads to shearing. A screw slot, by contrast, centres the forces - one is more likely to strip the slot if the down force is applied off centre.

One article I found that echos this is here (page 643): http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=isccss

"The typical failure mode observed in all tests was a combination of screw pull- out (tension failure), tilting of the screw (shear failure), and bearing of the sheet (shear failure). However, the normal- and low-ductility specimens did perform differently with respect to deformation and strength."

If I have understood this correctly, this tends to support the use of a screw slot, and explains why any form of vise grip, or similar, can be dangerous.

Please, I am not taking responsibility for those cutting screw slots - as I mentioned, mine are shallow and I do not over-tighten.

Perhaps LV will come up with a bolt that uses an Allen head. That would centre down force automatically.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

Not having one of these I don't know how much force you guys are talking about, however, if it takes a lot of torque then a slot is not a good approach. The problem, as anyone who has ever tried to tighten a slot screw head (or loosen a tight one) is that as the force required to tighten/loosen goes up, the resulting torque on the slot cause the screwdriver to want to creep up in the slot. You overcome this by bearing down very hard on the driver to resist the torque effect on the screw driver tip / slot. Derek's idea of an allen screw makes much more sense, but frankly, I question why the knurled screw head isn't enough to do the job. Perhaps it is too small? A larger head would provide better grip by a very significant amount, that coupled with the increased leverage of the bigger head diameter (as compared to the actual screw diameter) should be all that is needed.

[george wilson]

I don't have one of these planes,but I know that brass is a slippery metal. That is why the nuts require excessive force to tighten,I'm pretty sure. What is the cure? Make these nuts out of steel?(Then they could mar the shafts). Increase the diameter of the threaded portion(which might require making a whole new casting for the body of the plane), Increase the size of the knurled head? Would that make a finger grip sufficient? Make the heads into thumb screws(That will allow more torque to be exerted with the fingers.

Something here is definitely under engineered. I'm leaning toward increasing the diameter of the threaded portion and perhaps make the nut out of steel,with a brass tip to not mar the shafts. Go with either the flat thumb screw or the screwdriver slot.

Since LV is unlikely to make a whole new casting pattern for the body,and replace all the ones they have sold,a steel screw made of high tensile steel ought to add good strength to the screw against shearing off. That would require less drastic measures than making a whole new casting for the body.

Unless LV makes their screw out of high tensile steel,use of an Allen head will just wring off the threads even more effectively than a screw driver. You can buy black hardened allen head screws from machinist supply places. A good stainless steel one would also be a decent option. But will have to buy a box of 100,I expect.

You could saw a very short piece of brass to drop into the hole,to prevent marring the shafts.

I used to go to the local Fastenal store wanting a few screws. They would just give them to me. But,that depends upon the employees present. We had a nice young woman at ours. Since I retired,I haven't been there.

[Mike Brady]

In spite of all of the backyard engineering being related in these threads about the LV brass nuts, I doubt that the final solution will involve just putting a screwdriver slot in the thumbscrew. If you desire to shear the threads even sooner than file away on it. Presumably, Lee Valley is designing a replacement that will be robust enough for the job. The current design is inadequate for the task. It either should have been left off entirely (it is called the "Small" plow plane, after all), and sold for a lower price; or a really serviceable one put on. Unfortunately, neither happened. If you read the prior thread, a fix is in the works. All prior purchased plows will receive it, according to Mr. Lee. Why not just wait and see?

[george wilson]

Sorry Mike,as a professional tool maker,I don't consider my post as "back yard engineering". The best solution is going to be(as much as I like brass!) To make the screws out of stronger metal,with a brass tip,if necessary.

Wait and see if Mr. Lee's fix isn't along those lines. I doubt he will want to enlarge the screw threads. That would mean fixing all the existing planes to accept larger threads,or altering the castings.

[Jim Belair]

Sorry Mike,as a professional tool maker,I don't consider my post as "back yard engineering". The best solution is going to be(as much as I like brass!) To make the screws out of stronger metal,with a brass tip,if necessary.



Would it help if the brass tip/ insert had a concave radius on one end to increase the contact area with the shaft? Might not be practical in a manufacturing environment but something I'd do.

A flat on the shaft would accomplish the same thing I guess.

[Mike Brady]

Sorry to offend you George, but if a screwdriver slot was appropriate, I'm reasonably sure the tool makers at LV would have used them. No disrespect intended. Many companies in other industries would consider your recommendation as voiding any product warranty. Even Derek backed off on his recommendation for a home-made slot.

[Simon MacGowen]

Maybe I've got vise grip type fingers because I've never had the depth stop slip, and I've used them a fair bit over the years.

Same here. Never had a slip. Some people could be using too much downward force or a dull blade. I prefer to work with hands rather a tool for adjustments whenever possible -- quick and simple. Of course, in some cases, say a plane hammer is necessary for fine tuning.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

The problem of adjustments slipping on plow planes isn't a new one.

Stanley encountered it with the early versions of many of their planes. Like my #50 in an earlier post the #45 had knurling on the edges as the only tightening method. Not everyone had a problem with this. Stanley changed the head to have a slot. My #50 holds a setting all day long. I do have some old screws from a #45 that were modified, poorly, by an earlier owner.

The problem for LV is everyone who bought one of their planes will likely want "the fix" whether they are having a problem with their plane or not. Maybe their best solution would be to ship everyone a Nutsaver tool or to make their own tool that allows a little more tightening of the screw but not enough for the over zealous among us to twist the screw into failure.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

Are we talking about the plow plane, the skew rabbet plane, or both?

[Jim Koepke]

Are we talking about the plow plane, the skew rabbet plane, or both?

I thought we were talking about every plane with unslotted, knurled grip nuts or bolts that slip, the most modern example of which is the Veritas plow plane.

Though I may be mistaken, it wouldn't be my first rodeo around being wrong.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

I thought we were talking about every plane with unslotted, knurled grip nuts or bolts that slip, the most modern example of which is the Veritas plow plane.

Though I may be mistaken, it wouldn't be my first rodeo around being wrong.

jtk

I don't think you're wrong.
I got confused because the Chris Swarz article seemed to be about the Skew Rabbet plane,
but the string seems to be talking about the small plow plane.

It doesn't make any difference, because the depth stop design is the same.

I have the Skew Rabbets (gloat-both of them), but I lust after the small plow, I just haven't justified it yet.

[David Dalzell]

I have the Small Plow Plane, and initially had a sometimes problem with depth stop slippage. I then roughed the depth stop shaft with 180 grit sandpaper and never had the problem again.

[Lou Petrosino]

Wrap a little teflon tape (the kind for plumbing) around the threads and it will hold much better. Have done this at work on a threaded knob that would not stay in place, works very well.

[Karl Fife]

Robin Lee said to me at Handworks 2015 in Amana, Iowa that the reason they don't slot the screws at the factory is because people would over tighten them, and snap the threaded portion from the head. For those considering cutting your own slot, I'd venture to guess that if you're smart enough to read this post is smart enough not to over-tighten to the point of breakage. There's a BIG sweet-spot between "WILL NOT SLIP" and "SNAP". Think about it: When's the last time you snapped off a light bulb due to your unbridled brute force?

Consistent with what others have said, Robin Lee mentioned that a fix is in the works. He didn't divulge any secrets, but i would guess that it may be a steel screw pressed into a 'pretty' knurled brass head like the one shown below. I don't think even a Neanderthal could snap a #10 steel screw with just a screwdriver.
323314

I agree with Derek and the other commenters that the screwdriver (e.g. shop-made slotted head) is the safest way to tighten the existing brass screw with the least risk of breaking it. In other words, if you're up against an insufficiently strong screw as we are, using a screwdriver is a better idea than a strap wrench if your goal is to reduce risk of breakage for a given level of resistance to stop slipping.

More physics:
I think it's a good idea to lubricate the brass threads too. The screw's tensile load creates force between the stop and the plane body, which creates stiction/friction, preventing stop slippage. With this in mind, the more easily the screw can twist in its threaded hole, the more the screw's finite strength can serve the purpose of tensile load, and the less it will be taxed by torsion (e.g. forces caused by resistance to twisting forces under load). In other words a screw over-tightened to the point of breaking be at higher tension when it snaps if the screw had been lubricated than if unlubricated.

This also means that in the SAME way that others have had success with FENCE slippage by 'roughing up' the fence rods, there MAY be some benefit in roughing up the interface between the depth stop and the body/tracks which it rides in. This would presumably create more friction for a given amount of screw tension. Perhaps this would totally negate any need for a slotted head. :-)

Personally, I'm very happy to have my screw slotted. If I break that brass screw, I'll eat my own hat, then buy everyone here on this forum a beer.

[ian maybury]

It's not necessarily the easiest issue to sort out, and a mechanical engineer would likely concede that getting it right is as much a matter of practical trial, error and experience as it is the simple application of some calculation/formula or similar.

The trick has to be to get everything balanced - to come up with a knob that comfortably applies enough torque to provide the required clamping force - without overdoing it to cause damage to the clamped item or breaking the screw. Spanners and wrenches as well as being inconvenient risk over tightening.

I'm not a big fan of the classic knurled finger knob either - while they tend to be the default choice because everybody doing turned parts has a knurling attachment as you guys have said they tend to be a bit slippery and to invite reaching for a pliers or vise grips.

The screwdriver slot sounds a reasonable balance. Another option might possibly to head for a tooling supplier like these guys, and select a few appropriate metal knobs with a grippier/lumpier and/or possibly slightly larger head, but they won't be as pretty or compact: https://www.berger-tools.co.uk/Standard_Parts_For_Clamping__Operating__MacHine_Fi xtures/Hand_Knobs_Star_Knobs_Wing__Knurled_Thumb_Screws__ Nuts/

There's reasonable choice available, including brass and plastic tipped ones. Brass would be the aesthetic choice, and even without a two piece/steel stud it can be very strong stuff (similar to steel) - but a lot depends on the grade and the temper, and there's typically not many choices of stock knob available in it from the likes of tooling supply houses.

The standard brasses typically used for furniture knobs and the like may (my memory is hazy) be chosen more for free machining and ease of e.g. casting/forming than strength - while stuff like the right grade of aluminium or managanese bronze is strong (similar to mild steel) but harder to handle. Not necessarily the same colour either...

[george wilson]

I like Karl's picture of a steel shanked screw pressed into an oversize brass knurled head.

Teflon tape is a smart idea,too. Just make sure that none comes in contact with the steel shaft you are trying to prevent slippage of. But,that's obvious.

[William Adams]

I don't think even a Neanderthal could snap a #10 steel screw with just a screwdriver.

I dunno, have you seen some of the cheap stuff being passed off as steel fasteners these days?

Got refunded by Grainger 'cause a box of ``steel'' screws they sent me weren't even as strong as the brass screws I'd bought them to pre-drive holes for --- fortunately, I found a small bag of American-made screws in the right size (and for a flathead driver) which I was able to use.

[Mike Brady]

Personally, I hope that there is more to the solution than just a screw that will take more torque. In my opinion the depth stop is inadequately designed for the task asked of it. I have two owned two of the LV plow planes in question and both were "iffy" about holding a setting, particularly the earlier of my two planes. To me, finger tight should be my end of the deal. Designing it to hold a setting is up to the maker. A screwdriver is ok with me if that works best, but I would not use one on the current brass knob.

[george wilson]

There are many different grades of steel screws. If you are ordering machinist types of screws,order grade #8.

[Karl Fife]

Mike Brady said: >> A screwdriver is OK with me if that works best, but I would not use one on the current brass knob.

The reason I wrote the post is that It's perfectly acceptable to use the current brass knob as long as you're not John Steinbeck's "Lenny", always accidentally crushing bunnies to death with big, powerful steam shovel-ey hands. It's not a concern.

I'm sure that Veritas would indeed have returns on their hands if they'd put a big slot in the screw as I did, but only because people wouldn't think they needed to be careful.

[Chuck Hart]

I would include the skewed rabbet plan in the problem also, it has the same issues.

[Derek Cohen]

Personally, I hope that there is more to the solution than just a screw that will take more torque. In my opinion the depth stop is inadequately designed for the task asked of it. I have two owned two of the LV plow planes in question and both were "iffy" about holding a setting, particularly the earlier of my two planes. To me, finger tight should be my end of the deal. Designing it to hold a setting is up to the maker. A screwdriver is ok with me if that works best, but I would not use one on the current brass knob.

It is relevant to understand that the depth stops for the Skew Rabbet plane and the Small Plow plane are different in design. Consequently, the solution for each is actually different.

The Skew Rabbet looks like this ..

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/Raisingapanel_html_m3036ef83.jpg

What you will see here is that the depth stop is clamped down with direct pressure from the head of the screw.

The Small Plow looks like this ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20Veritas%20Small%20Plow%20Plane_html_1cb7a986 .jpg

Here the depth stop is held in place with a collar that is clamped to one side.

In the case of the Skew Rabbet, adding down force will aid in tensioning the depth stop shaft. However, in the case of the Small Plow, more down force will not add directly to tensioning the depth stop shaft. It only does this indirectly - the collar will end up with uneven pressure and the one side tightens and the other side does not. The shaft will be held more firmly, but it is unpredictable how well.

One answer for the Skew Rabbet is more downforce. Of course, this must not be seen in isolation - downforce simply causes more friction, which limits movement. Therefore rough the rod and rough the groove in which the rod goes, and then the added downforce will make more sense. The screw slot is not just to tighten the head, but also to loosen it!

With regard the Small Plow, I do have a solution, but I think that it is prudent to mention it to Lee Valley first before I air it here.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Karl Fife]

Out of curiosity is that the very same #10-32 all brass thumbscrew on both the plow and the rabbet? If so, the screw seems like even more of an Achilles heel on the plow than it is on the rabbet.

Take a look at what Lie Nielsen is doing to hold the stop on their up-and-coming plow. The casting receives a steel stud, and the knurled brass knob is threaded onto the stud. I don't have an opinion about the choice, but it definitely solves the "soft brass screw" problem without having to make the pretty but expensive combination Steel + Brass "Frankenscrew" like the one I posted earlier. Even death-grip, bunny-killing "Lenny" couldn't strip 10-32 'soft' brass threads with a screwdriver, whereas snapping the screw would be... a snap :-). Should I have said "Rabbet-Killing Lenny"?

323397

[Jim Koepke]

Take a look at what Lie Nielsen is doing to hold the stop on their up-and-coming plow. The casting receives a steel stud, and the knurled brass knob is threaded onto the stud.

Lie Nielsen is following the original design of the early Stanley Miller's patent plow plane. My recollection is the 'stud' is actually the threaded end of a rod threaded through the body for supporting the fence.

jtk

[Karl Fife]

That certainly is consistent with all of the pictures in the thread on this forum about the LN Miller Plow prototype,

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?231649-Close-Up-and-Personal-Look-at-the-NEW-Lie-Nielsen-PLOW-PLANE

especially this picture:
323398

[ian maybury]

I guess LN are not risking creating too many hostages to fortune with the very moderate knurling on the brass thumb nuts they have used - getting those tight may not be the easiest either.

Another variable (with screw head diameter and lumpiness in the case of finger tightening, or hex heads/screwdriver slots where tools are used - or the nutsaver which may not be a bad solution if it works well) that stands to significantly increase the available clamping force would be to use a finer pitch of thread on the stud. With the previously mentioned stronger stud material if needed.

There's another couple of potential issues that could quickly follow though. One is that the relatively short aluminium thread the studs screw into could easily strip - these casting grades of aluminium tend not to be the strongest ever. No designer will want to create a situation (by adding a screwdriver slot or hex head, or a fine pitch thread) where a clamping screw is easily done up tight enough for this to happen.

Another is that having the nut bear directly down on a slot as in the case of the LV skew rabbet and LN plough depth stops (without an intervening anti rotation pad) risks problems with it deforming as a result of the strips of metal each side of it bending/being pushed out sideways under the torque that gets applied by the thumb nut - unless that is they are thick and strong. (which broadly they are - relative to the thumb nuts used) This is a common problem elsewhere. It's not good that they are unmachined castings with irregular surfaces either. Neither is great engineering practice, but if done it's at least important that everything is flat/square/parallel and well finished in the clamping sandwich or the risk of problems will greatly increase and the grip and accuracy of alignment reduce. i.e. if the nut doesn't simultaneously touch down over the entire surface it will tend to disturb the stop setting as it tightens too.

Clamping surface area and finish are also big factors. It's best as above that the mating areas are accurately flat, and for example i wouldn't be keen on the way that the depth stop on the LV skew rabbet is powder coated either. Not given my experience of how slippery what's likely the same (polyester powder coating?) is on the jaws of the Mk 2 honing guide, and the likelihood that the cast and coated surface is in engineering terms probably quite lumpy. It's very likely that skimming/machining the clamping surfaces of the depth stops to make them accurately flat and parallel, and to expose bare metal would greatly improve the grip - although wear/galling/pick up could then become an eventual issue in the case of especially the cast aluminium LV stop.

It's not great practice either to have a screw threaded in a collar bear directly on a sliding rod as in the case of the LN plow plane. It risks marking the rod, the precision of location depends to a fair degree on the shape of the tip of the screw (tightening an irregularly tipped screw may cause movement), and the short aluminium thread that's only possible in the collar invites stripping with even moderate tightening.

Indirect locking with a split collar with a through clamping screw at right angles is a much better deal. This principle: http://www.bearingsrus.co.uk/single-split-shaft-collar - much as in a collet, but the collar in our case would likely be an integral part of the casting. The collar grips all around the rod/can be made longer if needed/can have lots of surface area so heavy tightening isn't needed, the hole can easily be made to an accurate diameter tolerance and surface finish, and the boss can be shaped so there's plenty of thread depth for the clamping screw.

A good quality dial gauge stand with accurately toleranced and well finished rods and inner clamp surfaces and decent sized hand knobs demonstrates these principles very nicely - it nips up really solidly with only moderate tightening of the knobs: http://www.machine-dro.co.uk/eclipse-push-button-magnetic-stand.html Not for nothing do they cost multiples of what a cheap one does...

The trouble is that the better arrangements tend to cost more. For all of the above there's not necessarily any absolute engineering rights or wrongs in this stuff - the task is to find a solution that works reliably and well at what is a fairly moderate price point, and simultaneously gives an acceptably long service life…

[David Ragan]

I ran into this problem way back with the Veritas Mk II jig.

A piece of Tygon clear plastic tubing one each jaw of a pair of pliers. I have a pair of these each end of the shop.

Leather strapped on with dental floss would also work.

Seems like a Rube Goldberg situation to me:)

[ian maybury]

This is the fix i went for David, there was definitely an issue with the stock Mk 2 honing guide blade clamp from my point of view: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?219790-Veritas-Mk2-Honing-Guide-Problem-amp-Fix&highlight= It's worked very well on just about anything that remotely fits in the jig, in that it's killed stone dead any issue of blades slipping/losing sideways alignment - while at the same time it ensures a set of accurately flat clamp faces which mean that even a narrow 3mm chisel maintains accurate vertical alignment off its flat back. It also copes perfectly with the highly sloped and somewhat irregular top side of Japanese chisels - some of mine were inclined to be squeezed backwards and out of the stock clamp.

I'm not sure what the story on the latest version of the Mk2 jig is, and there's since been the narow blade head made available by Lee Valley which may be a solution to the issue in some cases - but it's pretty clear from the shape of mine that somebody thought of incorporating a facing on the clamps when designing the die casting, but that for some reason it was never fitted in production. Hence the problem of slippery and irregular powder coated clamp faces.

I should say by the way that the above post regarding the engineering of some adjustment features on the speciality planes mentioned isn't taking a tilt at any maker in particular. Both clearly get forced into making calls on cost/benefit of certain design features. I don't know how well it works, but they at times also go for very elegant solutions - the Veritas small plough plane for example uses a very neat system of locking collects to lock the fence in position. http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.aspx?p=69788&cat=1,41182,48945&ap=1 Another variation on the sort of the split collar based method i was broadly pointing to above - except that a collet uses pressure on an external taper rather than a clamping screw to nip it up. It's in engineering terms a rather more respectable solution than a simple clamping screw.

What this all tends to say to me though is that i'd carefully check out the engineering details on any plane i was considering buying - especially on small volume production speciality models. On the basis that while there's times that a very good job is done, there's also times when there's some corners cut on good engineering practice in the details….

[David Ragan]

Wow.

I gotta tell you all that despite my "Rube Goldberg" comment below--I really love how we analyze and dissect the minutiae of stuff here. (Oops....well, to me it is minutiae;))

This is a meeting place of folks who love tools, and they way we can work/modify/buy/store/maintain them, etc....it's not necessarily about WW to me. That's just the medium. It's about the tools.

So many times, I will read stuff here from the engineering/physics/professional types that I just don't understand.....but I know in the future, if I ever want to get into into it on that level, I can. That is cool.

And, thanks for not taking offense @ my Rube Goldberg remark:D...........because I love that guy.

[ian maybury]

I guess David there's a long standing saying in technical and engineering circles that 'the devil is in the detail'.

There's also the little fact that it often takes many hours/days/weeks/even years of work to put something to the test, only to find that a brain f*** along the way has reduced the whole deal to an impossible pipe dream. Or means that a supposed solution is only a temporary band aid that will cause ongoing trouble and deliver no peace in use - instead of being the one time reliable fix that was required.

It tends to pay to go the extra mile on thinking stuff through.

It's proven time and again. No amount of enthusiasm or wannabe unfortunately sidesteps reality, so those of us that have spent a lot of time in the area seem almost inevitably to have developed a fairly picky mode of working......

[Tony Zaffuto]

Sometimes a design decision is made to deliberately have part of an assembly act as the "weakest link" to prevent a more costly piece of the assembly from damage. I have the LV plane with the screw in question, and without doing anything to it, such as roughing the depth stop rod or slotting the screw, the depth stop holds well. Is it possible that some, during the first use, may have over tightened, causing deformation of the screw threads? I don't know. A larger screw is definitely a possibility, as is a different material for the screw.

Time will tell, if LV gets a few complaints and responds with their findings. For me, it's use as usual.

[Jim Koepke]

Over time, some of my projects have been compromised by a setting becoming loose on one of my planes.

A few years back it became my habit to check settings when the plane was off the work during a return stroke. On the planes that have had the most problem with this, notably a Record #778, it is second nature to check the three bolts that are likely to loosen. They are the two on the fence and the depth stop bolt. Now the bolts are given a little extra torque with a small pliers. Haven't had a problem since.

I have no experience with the LV planes mentioned in this thread. My first try would be to hold the shaft in some coarse sandpaper and give it a few turns. If the bolt is brass, I would be very careful about using anything to increase the torque.

jtk

[Dave Lehnert]

Interesting read. Thanks to all who posted their thoughts.

I thought the reason to purchase a premium hand plane was to avoid such issues.
If I still have to fool around with getting something as simple as a depth stop on a premium plane to hold. May as well do it on a $10 flea market find.

[Karl Fife]

Make no mistake, we're all splitting hairs in a weird pursuit of perfection. The Veritas Skew Rabbet plane truly works "just fine" as is, and indeed it works better than anything else available IMO. For me, the biggest reason to improve it by slitting the screw is the awesome feeling of empowerment it fosters, and the way it exercises a part of my brain that doesn't get exercised in my 'modern' job. After that, I get to come here, and have a group of outstanding like-minded individuals say "Coooool", and tear into a great discussion.

Now I feel like "fixing" something else.

[Jim Koepke]

I thought the reason to purchase a premium hand plane was to avoid such issues.

A premium hand plane will minimize such issues.

It sounds like a little use of sandpaper is all it takes to make the stop hold its position.

Sometime I think working with metal is as much of a joy as working with wood.

jtk

[ian maybury]

Please pardon my responding directly Dave - but it'd be a pity to interpret some fairly nuanced comments on engineering principles and the very real problems of coming up with functional solutions at acceptable price points as a statement to the effect that none of the products work properly. So called 'high end' or 'premium' planes clearly do a very good job.

The underlying thought though was that the designers and makers of these products are not remotely handed a financial 'carte blanche'. 'High end' is a very relative term given price points which in engineering terms are still very restrictive. Just figure how much one of these 'expensive' planes has to be made for when manufacturing, wholesale and definitely retail mark ups are figured in - then compare that to the hourly rate for high end toolmaking services. There's always 'high-er' end engineering solutions available, but you wouldn't want to buy a plane at the price that would result if a cost is no object' approach was adopted.

As earlier 'The trouble is that the better arrangements tend to cost more. For all of the above there's not necessarily any absolute engineering rights or wrongs in this stuff - the task is to find a solution that works reliably and well at what is a fairly moderate price point, and simultaneously gives an acceptably long service life…'

The companies have to strike this balance, and by and large do a very good job for the customer while somehow managing to stay in business and put out a scarily large number of products.

That's not to say that there are not specific instances on particular tools where one detail isn't a little more prone to issues than others. That's an inevitability we have to accept - although it doesn't mean that we may not find that a given product by one or other maker has some advantages. As Jim said though 'a premium hand plane will minimise such issues'. My guess is that this scenario is more likely to occasionally arise on lower volume speciality stuff - mainstream bench planes for example are probably about as thoroughly refined as is imaginable. It's not as though the sort of issues that pop up are typically show stoppers anyway, they tend more to be of a nature that perhaps requires more careful handling...